Re: [pooma-dev] POOMA Namespace Pollution

[Jeffrey D. Oldham]

James Crotinger wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I thought that the various global (non-Pooma::) functions all had 
> Pooma:: objects as arguments, which should usually be enough to avoid 
> collisions with other people's stuff. What are the problem functions?
>
> I added namespace support to PETE a long time ago, but I believe it is 
> an option on the generator program that is used to generate the operator 
> files. Does CodeSourcery maintain the separate PETE repository? I don't 
> think this stuff was ever part of the Pooma distribution - we just 
> generated the operator includes and checked those in.

CodeSourcery does not maintain a PETE repository.  We never had access 
to the original CVS tree, and it has not undergone development during 
the past few years.

> At any rate, we 
> didn't put the Pooma operators in a namespace because, at the time, some 
> of our compilers (probably most, in fact) didn't do Koenig lookup 
> correctly.

--
Jeffrey D. Oldham
address@hidden